Posted on 10/21/2009 9:02:35 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
United States District Court Judge Jerome B. Simandle has dismissed the Kerchner v. Obama lawsuit challenging President Barack H. Obama's eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States.
"The Court finds that Plaintiffs Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr. lack standing to pursue their claims and so the Court must grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss."
Judge Simandle's full opinion is at the link.
Therein lies the reason to maintain that neither Obama nor McCain met the Constitutional standard. It's apolitical.
Mr. Keyes probably doesn't have standing because it is highly unlikely that he can prove that he would be President, but for the fact that Obama ran and won.
He would have to prove that victory was snatched from him for him to have standing.
The only people I can think of who could make that claim are John McCain and possibly Hillary Clinton, though it still isn't clear if either of them possibly having standing would be enough to overturn the election and certification of the election by Congress.
Thank you very much for links! I will have to re-read the cornell one when more time. If you will notice, the Court got involved when Congress FAILED to seat someone elected to the seat. I suspect the same would happen here, where there has been an election. I was very impressed with Appuzo’s site. He seems to be a real lawyer. I will browse it when more time.
parsy, who says thanks again
Anybody can predict the winner of the football game on Monday morning. Had the public known that Obama was not eligible then why would they vote for him. Isn’t that what Keyes is saying?
I think he will start avoiding schools....
"Chance of winning" means someone whose name is or will appear on the ballot along with the candidate whose qualifications are in question.
If ‘prior intent’ was correct, why did the Congress correct the entry with the subsequent 1795 Act? ... You’re arguing that prior intent is always correct regardless of being corrected in subsequent legislation.
You and I would take it to mean that, but that is not the way the DOJ goons used it in the case being argued before Judge Carter’s court! They construed it differently in order to argue Keyes had no chance of winning as shown by the results vote totals! Sadly, I do not think Carter will differentiate that specious misconstruing of the meaning.
Vitriolic poison? How about a bulging disk from when my trainer switched me up 80 pounds all at once on a set of exercises where I had been doing 120’s. A resultant half numb leg because I refused to go to a doctor for about 2 months after it happened. A botched operation a few years after that. And then some kind of friggin virus thing I got last year. (probably mono).
Resentful? Heck I’m happy with my 85 Dodge truck, my guitar, a few books (2000 maybe) to read, a TV and a computer. Oh, and my bamboo fly fishing rods and guns. And an amplifier. Oh, yeah and the naughty brass bear thing where two bears are “dancing” and a souvenir cast iron skillet that was once used by an unruly and un-domesticated female on my head.
parsy, who hurts like h*ll but still manages to smile
Thanks for saying that, Parsy.
IMO Judge Simandle, Jerome B(1) issued a thoughtful opinion. His detailed explanation of 'Standing' is one that almost anyone can understand - except for DU Moonbats with IQs of sticks.That's all. I'm outta here for today.And NOT to hijack the thread but IMO his numerous SCOTUS references are, and can be, useful for other 'hot button issues'. Like that jackass in SF who keeps suing over 'God'. Plus the outlandish 'carp' we see the ACLU always suing over.
It has so much potential use I saved a pdf copy.
(1) He's a Bush 41 appointtee
Your illnesses are full of excuses. None of it is your fault. Nothing is your fault. It is everything else that is to blame. You are guilt ridden from a sullied conscience.
You need to stay off this forum because it is bad for your health and makes your blood pressure go through the roof. Take care of yourself. Stay well and rediscover honesty.
I think Keyes will win on the standing issue, but lose on the justicability question which is tied into the statute of limitations. Like I have been preaching for weeks, the election laws in nearly every state (if not all states) require that these sort of challenges occur at the time the name is placed on the ballot before the election, not after the election. I assume that Keyes name was on the ballot in California, and therefore he would have had standing to challenge Zero’s qualifications at the time that Zero’s name was placed upon the ballot. The legal challenges, however, must be commenced within a few days of the date of the ballot certification, and certainly not after the election is held. Once the election is held, the controversy is no longer justicable; rather it becomes a policitcal question that is dealt through political means, i.e., impeachment, at least until the next election cycle.
The problem is the defrauding issue ... if you defraud the election process and get elected, the criminal aspect requires proof of guilt BEFORE removal, and if your position allows you to hide the proof from ‘the people’, you have gamed the system to remain in power illegally. IMHO, that is why discovery must be allowed int his case in CA, even if the case is then transferred to DC for quo warranto disposition. But I have come to the sad conclusion that Carter will not go that far and has already been told what to rule. Perhaps the final issuance of the Apuzzo case ruling is what Carter has been waiting on. His ruling will come out by 4PM Friday. The fix is in, has been in, and will remain, reagrdless of truth ... the great lie will be served int he antion which no longer deserves sovereignty vested in the people. The federal oligarchy is now all-powerful.
But wouldn’t the 1795 repeal come into play as original intent as well, demonstrating that Congress found that clause problematic, and outside of their authority to redefine by statute, and thus also by non-binding resolution such as SR 511.
PING!!!
Obama is a L-I-A-R.
The good news is that it takes double the energy to keep the lies up.
You have to show damage to some legally protected interest to prove standing. That damage has to be real and concrete, not hypothetical or conjectural.
IIRC...the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in PA is where one of Berg's cases was tossed because (one of) the wise judge there had said that the issue of Barry's eligibility had been "blogged" and "twittered".
I'm confidant justice will be served there.
/s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.